Brass v. The State of Nevada ex rel The NDOC ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 George Brass, Case No. 2:21-cv-00074-RFB-MDC 4 Plaintiff, 5 vs. ORDER STRIKING PRO SE MOTION FOR STATUS CHECK (ECF NO. 83) AND 6 Charles Daniels, et al., GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF 7 NO. 87) Defendants. 8 9 10 11 George Brass is an inmate that is being represented in this case by pro bono counsel. ECF No. 12 64. Plaintiff filed a Pro se Motion for a Status Check (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) on his own, without the 13 assistance of his pro bono counsel. ECF No. 83. The defendants filed a Motion to Strike (“Defendants’ 14 Motion”): defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Motion is improper because he is represented by pro bono 15 counsel. ECF No. 87. No one opposed the Defendants’ Motion. The Court GRANTS the Defendants’ 16 Motion and STRIKES the Plaintiff’s Motion as improper. 17 The Court may use its inherent power to manage its docket “to achieve the orderly and 18 expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). This Court’s Local 19 Rules prohibit a represented party from filing documents on their own. Local Rule IA 11-6(a). “The 20 failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of the motion constitutes a consent to 21 the denial of the motion.” LR 7-2(d). The Court notifies plaintiff that only his pro bono counsel may file 22 briefs and motions in this case on his behalf. The Court also observes that no one opposed granting the 23 24 Defendants’ Motion. The Court grants the Defendants’ Motion and strikes the Plaintiff’s Motion. 25 IT IS ORDERED that: 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike plaintiff’s Pro se Motion for a Status Check (ECF No. 1 83) from the docket. 2 Dated: September 18, 2024 3 _________________________ 4 Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III United States Magistrate Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25